Tag Archives: Abortion

Commentary

Does legalized abortion increase or decrease child abuse?

3 Comments

Neil Simpson has created a round-up of links on his blog. All the stories in his round-up are interesting, but this one by Randy Alcorn caught my eye. It’s entitled “The Rise of Child Abuse as a Result of Abortion”. You have to skip down a bit to get to the main point as he first talks for a while about his evil twin.

Here is his thesis:

My belief is that when people believe it’s okay to kill a child before he’s born, because an adult has rights over his life, then inevitably it will become more acceptable to beat him up once he’s born.

And here is his proof:

In 1973, when abortion was first legalized, United States child abuse cases were estimated at 167,000 annu­ally. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, approximately 903,000 children were victims of abuse during 2001, a number more than five times greater.

Obviously, this is not counting the 49 million murders of actual children.

Now you might say: “Wintery! Doesn’t abortion decrease child abuse by eliminating unwanted children?”.

Randy says no:

University of Southern California professor Edward Lenoski conducted a landmark study of 674 abused chil­dren. He discovered that 91 percent of the parents admitted they wanted the child they had abused.

“Studies indicate that child abuse is more frequent among mothers who have previously had an abortion.” Dr. Philip Ney’s studies indicate that this is partially due to the guilt and depression caused by abortion, which hinders the mother’s ability to bond with future children. He documents that having an abortion decreases a parent’s natural restraint against feelings of rage toward small children.

The attitude that results in abortion is exactly the same attitude that results in child abuse. Furthermore, if she doesn’t abort, the mother can look at her difficult three­-year-old and think, “I had the right to abort you.” The child owes her everything; she owes the child nothing. This causes resentment of demands requiring parental sacrifice. Even if subconscious, the logic is inescapable: If it was all right to kill the same child before birth, surely it’s all right to slap him around now.

I think we need to realize what is going through the mind of young women: they want to be happy and they are willing to murder innocent children in order to secure their own happiness. They do not see why anyone else’s rights should limit their own pursuit of happiness. After all, it’s survival of the fittest. The majority of single women are pro-abortion. They believe that their own happiness matters more than moral values and moral duties.

Consider how women voted in 2008:

Unmarried women supported Barack Obama by a 70-to-29 percent margin, and they voted for Democratic House candidates by a similar margin — 64-to-29 percent. These margins mean that unmarried women edged out both younger voters and Hispanic voters as the demographic with the strongest support for President-elect Obama. These unmarried women voters joined with younger voters and people of color to create what GQR calls a “new American electorate” — voters with a decided preference for liberal candidates.

Overall, women strongly supported Senator Obama over Senator McCain (56 percent for Obama, 43 percent for McCain). Men split their votes about evenly between the two presidential candidates, with 49 percent for Obama and 48 percent for McCain.

Obama is the most pro-abortion President there has ever been.

In my series of posts on atheism and morality, I explain why moral relativism is the result of atheism. If you want to stop abortion, there are two things to do. 1) You need to start convincing women that God exists, that objective morality is real, and that moral obligations trump the pursuit of selfish happiness. 2) You need to vote to cut off all taxpayer subsidies for pre-marital sex; sex education, contraception, single motherhood and abortion.

Commentary

What are the real goals of environmentalist radicals?

3 Comments

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from In Haught Pursuit! Thanks for the link!

Today I’ve been listening to the audio book version of Christopher C. Horner’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism”. And I thought that I would share with you some quotations from the environmentalist radicals to shed some light on their real motivations.

In the audio book, Horner is tracing the evolution of the modern environmentalist movement back to two failed groups: 1) people who predicted overpopulation and 2) people who advocated for communism. Both of these groups failed, but their aims (mass murder) live on in the abortion and environmentalist movements. Let’s take a look at the real views of environmentalists.

Economist Walter Williams puts it this way:

The authors of the study don’t quite reach a conclusion that I’ve reached about environmental activists, whose agenda calls for private property confiscation and control over the lives of ordinary citizens. Back in the 60s and 70s, America’s leftists called themselves socialists and communists. They were the people who paraded around college campuses singing praises of support to tyrants like Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and Pol Pot. Today, the communist system and its promises have been revealed as both a miserable failure and a system of unprecedented brutality. Thus, communism and socialism have become an embarrassment, so environmentalism is the name for an old agenda.

Here is an article by Mr. Horner from the National Review to help us with some actual quotations by environmentalists.

1. Radical environmentalists hate capitalism because it helps the poor.

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy… would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun,” says green godfather Paul Ehrlich. Oh, the horrors of subjecting millions to affordable heating, lighting and cooling, transportation, and other freedoms.

…the greens [affirmed] their agenda at the August World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg… Among their projects: impeding technology that increases agricultural abundance, even the shipment of food to famine-stricken countries like Zimbabwe; lamenting the pernicious influence of indoor plumbing; and complaining that the poor shouldn’t want (or get) such comforts as electricity because there are larger, Gaia-centric considerations at play.

2. Radical environmentalists favor mass murder of the poor, and not just by abortion and technological regress.

  • “To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.” Lamont Cole (as quoted by Elizabeth Whelan in her book Toxic Terror)
  • “This is as good a way to get rid of them as any.” Charles Wursta, Chief Scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commenting on the likelihood of millions dying from a global ban on DDT (also quoted in Toxic Terror)
  • “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.” Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace (quoted in Access to Energy, vol. 10, no. 4, Dec. 1982)
  • “The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state.” Kenneth Boulding, originator of the “Spaceship Earth” concept (quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)
  • “The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species [man] upon the rest of the natural world.” John Shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth manual writer

And In the Walter Williams article I cited earlier, he adds a couple more:

Then there are statements like those of David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth, and former executive director of Sierra Club: “While the death of young men in war is unfortunate, it is no more serious than the touching of mountains and wilderness areas by humankind.” David M. Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service wrote, “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet.” John Davis, editor of Earth First Journal, says, “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” Davis also opined, “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”

These people have an abiding contempt for humankind. They seek to accomplish their agenda with useful idiots in and out of government and make use of what H.L. Mencken warned us about, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Environmentalism is really about controlling others. And when your kids go to public schools to be taught by the left, they are indoctrinated to have these environmentalist beliefs: that humans are bad and that we need to die. The mass murders that emerged from the secular-left are not aberrations – they really do believe in killing hundreds of millions of innocent people with communism, abortion DDT bans, etc.

News

Chinese scientists announce stem-cell research breakthrough

2 Comments

Previously, I blogged about how scientists had discovered a way to prevent ethical adult stem cells from being infected with cancerous mutations. I’ve also written about some of the proven cures that have been developed with adult stem cells and compared it with the number of cures developed by unethical embryonic stem-cell research, i.e. – NONE.

But now we learn about a new source of functional stem cells: PIGS! That’s right, PIGS!

Check out this story from the BBC.

Excerpt:

Chinese scientists have given cells from adult pigs the ability to turn into any tissue in the body, just like embryonic stem cells.

They hope the breakthrough could aid research into human disease, and the breeding of animals for organ transplants for humans.

The study appears online in the Journal of Molecular Cell Biology.

…Tests showed that the reprogrammed cells were capable of becoming any of the cell types that make up the three layers in a developing embryo.

Now you say, “Wintery! What good are pig stem cells for human beings?” So I’ll tell you.

Dr Xiao said pigs were a potentially ideal source of organs for transplant, as their organs were similar in function and size to those found in humans.

He said reprogrammed stem cells could potentially be used to make a pig organ compatible to the human immune system, minimising the risk of rejection.

The cells could also be used to mimic human disease in pigs, allowing scientists to test new therapies without requiring human volunteers.

There’s more in the story, it’s worth a look!

BONUS (depressing, though)

My elusive friend Richard e-mails me this article from the CBC, which talks about Quebec’s plan to pay for screenings for pregnant women to see if their child has Down’s syndrome. The article states that “statistics in other countries show that 90 per cent of women end their pregnancy after a positive test.” Quebec is the most secular and left-wing province in Canada.

What is it about the weak that causes leftists to want to kill them? Is it because they desire happiness for themselves above all and do not believe that humans have certain inalienable rights guaranteed by God? Is it because they believe that there is no value in suffering a little in order to take care of others has no value in a mindless, accidental universe where the only purpose is to have happy feelings until you die?